Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2016/Self-harm motivation in adolescence

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments[edit source]

Hello, I have found some research articles hope will be useful to you

  • Nonsuicidal Self-Harm Among Community Adolescents: Understanding the “Whats” and “Whys” of Self-Harm*~hmac=1991ba9bdce9d2e2f104b0904549a14c02b081de2db2c5dfcc9b3b7858ee60fc

  • Factors associated with self-harm in community-based young offenders: the importance of psychological variables (discusscontribs) 08:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Heading casing[edit source]

Crystal Clear app ktip.svg
FYI, the convention on Wikiversity is for lower-cased headings. For example, use:

==Cats and dogs==

rather than

==Cats and Dogs==

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[]

Chapter review and feedback

This chapter has been reviewed according to the marking criteria. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Please also check the chapter's page history to check for editing changes made whilst reviewing through the chapter. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below and/or contacting the reviewer. Chapter marks will be available later via Moodle, along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.

Wikiuutiset logo typewriter.png

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a solid chapter which could be improved by making more effective use of the wiki publishing environment.
  2. For more feedback see these copyedits and the comments below.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Theory is well explained and well covered.
  2. The Overview establishes why the topic is important and the chapter is focused on the topic/problem.
  3. Addition of case studies or additional examples could be helpful.

Research[edit source]

  1. Research is reasonably well cited.
  2. When describing important research studies, provide some indication of the nature of the method.
  3. When discussing important research findings, indicate the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship.

Written expression[edit source]

  1. The chapter is well-written.
    1. Some clarification templates have been added to the page.
    2. The Conclusion is a summary of key points but could also provide a unique take-home message.
  2. Layout
    1. Limited effort at putting the content into a wiki format.
    2. See earlier comments about heading casing
    3. The chapter is well-structured.
    4. No images or tables were used.
  3. Learning features
    1. Add Interwiki links (e.g., to relevant Wikipedia articles and other Wikiversity book chapters) to make the text more interactive.
    2. Quiz questions are used effectively to encourage reader engagement - put these into Wikiversity quiz format so they become more interactive.
  4. Grammar and proofreading
    1. The grammar of some sentences could be improved (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags).
  5. APA style
    1. The reference list is not in full APA style.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[]

Multimedia feedback

The accompanying multimedia presentation has been marked according to the marking criteria. Marks are available via the unit's Moodle site. Written feedback is provided below, plus see the general feedback page. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below. If you would like further clarification about the marking or feedback, contact the unit convener.


Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is an excellent all-round presentation.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. Overview
    1. Clear, engaging.
    2. Use the Overview to set up the problem to be solved (the question i.e., the subtitle for the book chapter).
    3. Tell the listener what they will find out about if they watch this presentation.
  2. Selection and organisation
    1. Well selected content - not too much or too little.
    2. Excellent structure.
    3. Lovely simplicity with visuals.
    4. Addresses a self-help theme.
    5. Theory was well covered.
    6. Research was somewhat covered.
    7. Include citations.
    8. Perhaps consider using more illustrative examples.
    9. References are included.
  3. Conclusion
    1. A Conclusion slide summarising the take-home messages / key points could be helpful.

Communication[edit source]

  1. Audio
    1. Very well narrated.
    2. Varied intonation added interest and engagement.
    3. Audio is clear and well-paced.
  2. Visuals
    1. Simple, effective, engaging, dynamic - using Prezi.
    2. However, the autostart didn't work - had to manually advance through the presentation.
    3. Visuals are well prepared, clear, and easy to read.
    4. Full title doesn't show by default on opening slide.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. Overall, very well produced.
  2. Meta-data
    1. Well titled.
    2. Link to the book chapter provided.
    3. Fill out the description field (e.g., brief description of presentation, license details, and possibly include references, image attributions, and/or transcript).
  3. Audio recording quality
    1. Excellent
  4. Image/video recording quality
    1. Very good except auto-start/auto-advance not working.
  5. Licensing
    1. A copyright license for the presentation is not indicated (i.e., in the meta-data or the visual presentation).
    2. The copyright licenses and sources of the images are indicated.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[]